PRACTITIONER APPLICATION: Can Inbound and Domestic Medical Tourism Improve Your Bottom Line? Identifying the Potential of a U.S. Tourism Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little argument that the healthcare industry continues to change at a fast rate. In fact, many healthcare organizations have had to evolve—if not reinvent themselves—to keep up with industry changes or risk being left in the wake of their competitors. At present, I see no sign of slowed momentum with healthcare reform. This means that today's healthcare administrator must become comfortable navigating unfamiliar waters and be willing to look at new sources of revenue to overcome a landscape characterized by reduced reimbursement. Fottler et al. present a market perspective that has received limited research attention. Yet, I suspect that many domestic hospitals realize the potential of attracting the medical tourist segment and have, at one point or another, created strategic initiatives to support both inbound and domestic medical tourism. As a practitioner, I have had the privilege of experiencing all forms of medical tourism described in this article, including helping to grow a successful international center for inbound medical patients in a world-class academic medical center, managing hospitals in foreign countries that provide less costly care for American patients unable or unwilling to pay for their domestic insurance copays, and overseeing a hospital in the southern United States that serves the snowbird population from Canada and the northern U.S. states. On the basis of my experience, I concur with Fottler et al.'s conclusion that these markets represent potentially significant revenue streams. In this study, the authors looked at a comprehensive data set to determine the utilization of healthcare services for a large urban healthcare system. While it is true that geographical, environmental, and individual facility (e.g., brand, reputation) factors attract medical tourists to healthcare organizations, all administrators should study their hospital admissions to determine origination patterns. Understanding current patient demographics and reviewing information from local convention and visitors bureaus may help organizations discover an untapped market for their hospital. In addition to the external marketing plan the authors describe, organizations should review internal programs to determine if changes are warranted in areas such as translation services that cover patient education. Nutritional needs and diets may also require review to ensure alignment with the patient's country of origin. Finally, hospital staff may require culture-specific training to understand patients' traditions and customs. In summary, healthcare administrators should recognize the potential that inbound and domestic medical tourism offers. While understanding why medical tourists visit certain hospitals is important, knowing the key satisfiers that grow future volume is essential. Experience suggests that facilities that formalize strategies with specific goals and established resources for inbound and domestic medical tourism outperform those facilities with unorganized approaches for this market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".